Posted on 12/13/2005 11:56:25 AM PST by badabing98
As I will state a few more times in this post, I'm not calling female servers evil. I'm saying that maybe the move wasn't the best one across the board.
First, as I've said before, if either of you have read my posts on this subject, you will both recognize that I am hardly a "cafeteria Catholic" or hardly a "CINO." That characterization applies to my family, as well: family Rosary, daily recitation of the Divine Office (frankly, my daughter only does the morning and evening office), etc.
I've read your posts when I've lurked on the Catholic threads, and based on that, I can attest to your point--I'd have to infer that you're an excellent role model for our youth. I just have to disagree with you on this issue, that's all.
If I came across as being harsh or outright aggressive, I'm very sorry. I wasn't trying to offend anyone or attempt to start an all-out flame war.
But what I'm trying to get at is that I believe the move was unwise from square one, IMO. It's definitely not the female servers or their families that are the problem--it was the decision to radically alter the then-current status quo. At the same time, there's neither anything to reverse it, nor is there necessarily any justifiable action to actually implementing it.
What I'm also essentially saying is that since serving was made such that young men could be inspired to the priesthood, and women cannot become priests, it IMHO doesn't make much sense. It's been done, nonetheless.
At the same time though, having female servers opens one more door to their moral formation. And, given our culture, moral formation is sorely needed, especially within my generation. Serving has helped with this. With all due respect, I believe all of us can agree on these last two statements.
I've also said that it's virtually impossible to return to the previous status quo, given the state of our society and our culture. The reform groups and women's organizations would just go beyond nuts over any change--such that by doing so, the Church in our nation loses its credibility, which in turn removes the largest band holding our eroding morals together.
Nor did I say that change has to occur overnight. Rather, if we eventually lowered the ratio of female to male servers, and opened up another avenue designed for moral formation of young women, it's my personal opinion that this would be the logical, natural, and more orthodox approach.
Personally, I'm in favor of returning to the status quo, though I recognize that the current move cannot be undone, nor in many cases would a reversal be a wise idea. Keep in mind that this is my personal, semi-educated opinion.
Like I said, if anything else, we can and ought to agree to disagree.
I was a server for eight and a half years (from 4th grade until my freshman year of college). And, in that time, I've slowly seen almost all the guys I know drop out of serving, and now in my parish, most of the servers are girls. And even then, most of them don't take their duties seriously7 I've seen talking, people wearing street clothes, and gratuitous flirting during Mass (though almost always when there's a male and a female server paired together), and all of it right next to the priest.
Though how it sounds, it seems like you have a good parish that was able to implement female servers and maintain the spiritual integrity, thus aiding in the fostering a devout home life.
Clearly, my parish is more of a polar opposite, and I'm in suburban metro Milwaukee to top it all off.
Every Sunday when I go to Mass, and when I notice what the servers do these days, I can't help but think how this came to be. What happened? is my biggest question.
What I'm saying is that having this has posed more problems than it's solved. Perhaps it wasn't the best solution to meet everyone's needs, or maybe it wasn't the decision itself, but how it was implemented.
Especially that when I joined, one of the purposes stated to us was to encourage young men to consider religious life.
And, like I said, I don't disagree that there are few serious avenues for people of my generation to actually partake in moral formation.
But then again, shouldn't we be addressing on all levels (parish, arch/diocesan, etc.)?
Perhaps we all can work on ideas to increase the moral formation of our youth, instead of going around trying to second-guess a decision that cannot be reversed, and is equally unwise to consider.
I agree with that--this is one of the major reasons why I see an all-out reversal as being unwise and an utter failure.
"I take your responses rather personally"
I'm not going to take responsibility for your inability to discuss issues in the abstract, without personalizing them. If you choose to take it personally, that's your problem.
"And that is why I am so insulted by your characterizations."
No, you're insulted by my characterizations because *you* decided to take it personally, and *you* chose to become angry about it. Without the slightest shred of a plank to stand on, I might add.
"the ones who complain if they see a liturgical abuse"
Altar girls *are* a liturgical abuse.
"So what do you suggest for her or other young ladies like her?"
The Church managed for almost 2,000 years before altar girls appeared, so why ask me? Shirley a person with your knowledge of the Church must know how it was done in earlier times.
"Don't pop off"
Don't tell me not to pop off.
"You talk about female altar servers like they and their families are the problem"
No, I don't, so take your Midol. I talk about Bishops who reacted to a definite "no" from the Vatican by commencing the use of altar girls in their dioceses; about Vatican officials who reacted to that not by flogging the miscreants but by issuing ex post facto approval; about priests who enthusiastically endorsed or weakly acquieced in this abuse; about rogue theologians who have endeavored to bring the Church into compatibility with an ever-more degenerate secular society, about the Mahoneys and the other reprobate bishops...the only people I don't much blame are lay people who have been misled by the above-named guilty parties.
"I simply don't see many parishes with other, spiritual opportunities anymore (Sodalities and the like)"
The key words there being "any more." Gone but remembered doesn't necessarily mean "gone forever." They were deliberately terminated by the heretics discussed above, and they can be revived.
"..but I'm more than happy to listen..."
When you're not crushing fingers, I presume.
"I think it would be pretty ugly if she got a letter in the mail saying "your service is no longer needed"
So do I. She certainly deserves a long, thorough explanation of Church history and the reasons that the entire Church is ending that particular practice, delivered kindly and face-to-face.
"In the Archdiocese of Louisville"
I commuted to Louisville several times for medical treatment, and found a Church by peregrinating closer and closer to the steeple that I could see from the freeway.
It was an old church, and the Father was a Benedictine (I presume, judging by the fact that he was dressed like one.)
I only went on weekdays, but it seemed okay to me. Do you know that Church?
They should keep or "grandfather" in the current ones but only accept males going forward.
"They should keep or "grandfather" in the current ones but only accept males going forward."
That might be a workable compromise, but it would put off "the healing" for years.
My bad. That's what I get for relying on spellcheck too often. Thanks for catching it.
I do appreciate the constructive response. The "evil" and "spawn of Satan" comments were reflective of, what I perceived to be the general tone of the comments on the thread, not your specific responses.
I sympathize with the situation in your parish...I have seen a number of parishes in the Washington Archdiocese that are in similar condition.
My primary concern is for the moral formation of the girls of our parish and the lack of opportunity for reinforcement in the parishes, particularly where girls are concerned.
While I agree that it would, in a conceptual world, be more advantageous to allow only males to serve at the altar (bringing back memories of the "minor orders"), in this same conceptual world there would be an adequate number and type of confraternities either specifically targeted to young women or at least open to them where their inherent desire for increased formation and function within the Church could be fostered.
Unfortunately, at least in the area where I live, this simply doesn't exist. There is only CCD, CYO, and teen groups. CCD stops at eighth grade (here), CYO is likewise aimed at the younger crowd, and the teen group is, well, a social group and could, in no way, be considered any kind of a confraternity.
The point is that, at least in the parishes I'm familiar with, there are very few opportunities for either sex to augment the moral formation received in the home or to assist with vocations discernment, particularly for teens.
My position, as advocated by a number of other posters, is that I wouldn't object if new entrants to the ranks of altar servers were restricted to males only. But that provision would have to be accompanied by a provision of other opportunities for the formation of young women that would provide similar benefits.
My daughter has wanted to be a server since she received her First Communion (I am a lector so she sees that as an example). I am personally glad that the opportunity was available for her. I would have hated to be in a situation where I had to explain that her services were not needed. If there were other opportunities made available, then the issue would be one of re-directing rather than saying that her services aren't required.
But the bottom line is that a comprehensive solution to the problem of vocations and moral formation of the youth (to stimulate that interest in vocations) is needed. We can do what we can do at home, but reinforcement and support is needed from the Church, as well. When that happens, then there simply won't be an issue.
Who is this Shirley? and why should she have such knowlege? Surely Shirley is a result of errant fingers.
That might be a workable compromise, but it would put off "the healing" for years.
No. The healing would begin and end within a decade. There would be no hard feelings from those it would be taken away from. What the Church did to the traditionalists after Vatican II was shameful and we are still dealing with the repercussions. It should not be done to the progressives either.
I was just about to mention the Sodality when I read your post.
I was a member of our parish's Sodality from earliest girlhood right up through high school. We had a wonderful time and really felt as though we were doing something important.
I once asked if we could start one up at my parish today, even though I am the mother of two boys, and was told, "Why would we want to do THAT?? The girls serve on the altar now and don't need the Sodality anymore."
Perhaps your pastor will be more amenable to this suggestion than was mine.
Regards,
Unfortunately, I know only of a couple of churches in the Washington Archdiocese that have Sodalities any more and none are located anywhere near where we live. Starting one would be a good thing...and I wonder if there would be the interest...
Fortunately, the High School we are going to send her to (God willing) has one.
Im glad to hear that, and I do hope that your daughter enjoys it and finds it as rewarding as I did as a girl.
Regards,
While I agree that it would, in a conceptual world, be more advantageous to allow only males to serve at the altar (bringing back memories of the "minor orders"),in this same conceptual world there would be an adequate number and type of confraternities either specifically targeted to young women or at least open to them where their inherent desire for increased formation and function within the Church could be fostered.
Exactly. And this is what I would ultimately like to see happen. More opportunities are what our youth need, and good folks like you and I really should consider and ultimately advocate for.
My position, as advocated by a number of other posters, is that I wouldn't object if new entrants to the ranks of altar servers were restricted to males only. But that provision would have to be accompanied by a provision of other opportunities for the formation of young women that would provide similar benefits.
This is where I was going along with advocating servers being male. On the other hand, because girls like your daughter saw benefit from serving, it is a gross injustice to deny her (or any other young woman for that matter), another opportunity that provides at least the equivalent levels of moral formation and active-role responsibilities. This again goes back to the fact that merely eliminating female servers is going to be a failure--there has to be a quid pro quo, at least another door has to open to replace the one that closes.
After all, there is a reason why God made man and woman--to complement each other. To eliminate young women as servers in favor of young men,not do anything for the young women, and then hold on to the complementary belief of man and woman doesn't make much sense.
But the bottom line is that a comprehensive solution to the problem of vocations and moral formation of the youth (to stimulate that interest in vocations) is needed. We can do what we can do at home, but reinforcement and support is needed from the Church, as well. When that happens, then there simply won't be an issue.
Couldn't have said that better--I agree completely.
"That might be a workable compromise, but it would put off "the healing" for years."
""No. The healing would begin and end within a decade.""
I believe a decade qualifies as "years."
" It should not be done to the progressives either."
I'm gonna have to think on that one, starting with, "Why are "progressives" owed the slightest consideration?"
"Surely Shirley is a result of errant fingers."
No, Shirley is surely the result of an errant sense of humor.
"Well the feminist "Womyn" are going to be pissed off regardless."
Exactly, so why drag it out?
"There is no Eastern Rite church anywhere near where I live or I would attend such a mass regularly. When I travel I always look for such a mass, primarily to avoid surprises, like dancing girls or bongo drums or creative liturgy."
I guess that's an advantage to having a liturgy that has stayed pretty much the same for about 1600 years. No bongos.
I'm surprised that there isn't an eastern Catholic church in your area. Most major metro areas have one or two. Here's a link to the unofficial directory of eastern Catholic churches in case you're looking for one while traveling
http://www.crosslink.net/~hrycak/ch_indx-s.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.